Well, what I mean is that the hashes don't have to change so dramatically. MD5 says that if you change one byte of the source, then at least half of the bits in the hash will change. I don't see any rule that a hashing function may not, when one byte has been changed in the source file, merely change the value in a corresponding part of the hash (for instance, if a bit is changed 73% of the way through the file, the value 73% of the way through the hash will be changed).
Someone else replied bringing up the term "watermark" which I'd call just a semi-fuzzy hash value. "Hash" does not necessarily imply MD5. Different hashing functions have different purposes, and just because the one you're used to dealing with on a p2p network, whose purpose is to make sure you get the *exact same* file you wanted to get, doesn't mean that all hashing functions have to work that way.
Well, yeah, using MD4/MD5 hashing, if you change one bit you've got a brand spankin' new fingerprint. That's the hole point of MD[45]. That doesn't mean that *all* hashing schemes are guaranteed to change half their bits when one bit of the original source is changed.
What are you talking about exactly? The TV show, the novels or the radio series?
Er, I think I was perfectly clear when I said "from the BBC TV series."
if your contention is that the author wanted it to look like crap then I m afraid you're a little off the mark.
Where did I say that DNA wanted it to look like crap? All I said was that I thought the cheap special effects did a much better job than vast amounts of expensive CG could do with the material. And I still stand by that.
Campbell's got this incredible, self-important swagger about him though... I can see what you mean 'bout Myers though. I guess I've been so unimpressed by everything Myers has done since the first Austin Powers that I just don't want him anywhere near the works of good ol' DNA.:)
Mike Myers? You've gotta be kidding me. And while I dig Owen Wilson in general, I think he'd make a lousy Ford.
Zaphod should go to Bruce Campbell, and Jeff Goldblum would be great for Ford. And if Disaster Area makes it into the movies, they should do whatever it takes to get the Rolling Stones to play them.
Bah. I hope they use as little CG as possible. HHGTTG isn't supposed to be some glitzy high-production thing; it's B-movie camp, and B-movie camp at its finest. Zaphod's plastic-head-attached-to-his-shoulder thing from the BBC TV series was outstanding. CG could ruin a good movie like this.
... the people running the.nu tld were complete and total idiots. I dropped my.nu domain a year after getting it because I didn't want to deal with them anymore. This was back when they were first starting up, though, I suppose, so perhaps they've been doing better as of late.
they are running a poll and currently 94% 'loved Bloom County & will read "OPUS"'
Well duh... The poll is on the article's page, and who's going to bother reading the article unless they were already Breathed fans? Well, six percent would, apparently, but meh.
I think this robot could have many practical applications in the field of mapping out office buildings for inclusion in FPS games. Frag your coworkers!
Well, some time ago I used Firebird for a few weeks just to see if it *was* better, and eventually I just went back. I was posting in a thread which posed the question, "Why should I switch over to Firebird," and I was providing some reasons why, perhaps, one wouldn't want to. Woo! Discussion!
On Firebird v0.7, open your Options menu. Select "Advanced", and under "Browsing", uncheck the first option, "Hide the tab bar when only one website is open". Voila.
Yes, yes, yes.:) You are now the third person in this thread to let me know that this feature has been added in 0.7. I will concede that point and ask that others wishing to sway me to Firebird read the rest of the thread before becoming highly redundant.
2) While I also keep the tab bar always showing, saying "it's *annoying*" is only your opinion, not fact. I know several people who want the extra screen space when they only have one tab open, so they keep the tab bar hidden. To each their own, and that's the whole motto of Firebird.
Well, right, that was basically my point. Mozilla has had an option to toggle that sort of behavior for some time now. Firebird has evidentally only added it in now with their 0.7 release; previously you had to dig around in about:config and know what you were looking for. Hardly a user-friendly approach.
This is why Firebird exists; instead of giving everyone the "kitchen-sink" SeaMonkey approach, give them a lean browser, with a good set of default preferences, that the end user can configure however they want.
See, this is precisely why I love Mozilla, though. Yes, there's a kitchen sink in there, but I've found it to be much more configurable, in the end, than Firebird is. Very rarely do I have to go into about:config. I don't use half the features in Mozilla, and I've got very simple options in the Preferences screen to turn those off. Whenever I try to change Firebird behavior, I have to struggle with about:config and digging around in IRC and on lists just to do what I want.
Links to Bugzilla from Slashdot won't work, they have a referrer check set up on there.
I'm running 0.7, and don't have Auto Form Fill on.
Ah, but despite the fact that you've got it turned off, it is very likely that Firebird is *still* recording all of your form input. (Perhaps this has been fixed for 0.7 and just not updated in their Bugzilla, but I doubt it.) Give it a try; turn it on and you should see entries that you've been typing while you've had it off pop up on your screen.
Heh. You see, rather than "doing something," I've done something better. I've installed a superior product that already does exactly what I want. Why spend time and energy making something else function more like something that already exists and fits all my needs?
Meh. The reason I don't like Firebird is most of the items marked "Yes" where Mozilla says "No." I hate integrated search bars (yes, I know you can turn those off), I despise Form Fill to no end (and it seems that Form Fill is impossible to turn off, which is what finally drove me away from Firebird last time), "Automatic Downloading" isn't something I feel deserves to be under the category of "features" ("bugs" is more like it)... Also, if the whole goal of Firebird is to be the friendly, easy user experience, then I shouldn't have to go into "about:config" just to get the browser to behave properly. It seems most of the configuration options I think are great are simply holdovers from the Mozilla codebase that they're going to axe once they get around to it.
For example:
Why do I have to set browser.fixup.alternate.enabled just to turn off Firebird's damn "helpful" URL-rewriting "feature" (yes, I *didn't* mean to put a ".com" at the end!)
Why do I have to set browser.tabs.autoHide to false just to have it keep the tab bar visible all the time like it should be doing by default (don't they understand it's *annoying* to have your whole window shift down whenever you open a new tab?)
There were other little minor annoyances, too, but I've forgotten those. Anyway, it's still Moz for me, all the way.
Hm, perhaps I've just had better luck than you or something. As I said, I haven't had a single popup I didn't want since I've been using the Moz versions that have supported popup blocking, and I *do* get the popups that I want (on my webmail system, bank, etc).
The link for comparing popup blocking is interesting, thanks for that... For what it's worth, Moz failed the "Mouseover" test, so that's certainly a problem. It also had popups on the "Dropdown" and "Sticky" tests, but both of those use CSS which I've seen used for actual, legitimate site navigation (blocking Sticky, in particular, would disable menus on an increasing number of sites).
I find the Proxomitron to be a far better pop-up blocker
Now, I'm not saying that Proxomitron isn't as good as you claim, but how exactly could it do better than blocking *all* popup ads I don't want to see? I haven't seen a popup ad since Moz added the feature.
A friend of mine didn't even get any notice; they just pulled him unceremoniously from the service. That's the day I cancelled my subscription with them. I'm totally okay with them having limits, but it's just bad practice to be so rude to the people who love your service and have been evangelizing it to all their friends. If there's a limit, tell us or (*gasp*) just limit the downloads!
Of course, now they have limited the downloads, and 40 downloads is just ridiculous. At the time, I was thinking maybe 400-500 megs per month or something; you've still got plenty of room to find new music with. Forty songs though? Bah.
Yeah, absolutely. During my three-month stint with Emusic some time ago, I got a staggering amount of stuff. I got a couple of friends signed up for the service too, and it was great 'till one of them got unceremoniously kicked off for downloading too much. Now, I understand that they were probably losing money off of us, but I was really curious why they didn't just, you know, limit his downloads or something, rather than just dropping his account without any prior warning. I figured that eventually they'd wise up and drop the "unlimited downloads" thing and put some reasonable limits, but forty songs? As I mentioned in another post, what happens if you want to download a Gore Beyond Necropsy album? You're totally SOL, that's what.
... I was just planning on signing up again to get some things I missed the last time I signed on.
Then again, I shouldn't complain seeing as though I used my $15/month subscription to download about 40GB of music over the course of three months, so I guess I got my money's worth.:P
Forty downloads though? What if you want to download a Gore Beyond Necropsy album? Seems you wouldn't be getting your money's worth at all. You'd blow all 40 songs on part of one album and end up with less than an hour of music.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone else replied bringing up the term "watermark" which I'd call just a semi-fuzzy hash value. "Hash" does not necessarily imply MD5. Different hashing functions have different purposes, and just because the one you're used to dealing with on a p2p network, whose purpose is to make sure you get the *exact same* file you wanted to get, doesn't mean that all hashing functions have to work that way.
Er, um, heh... SSsssshhhhh!
Well, yeah, using MD4/MD5 hashing, if you change one bit you've got a brand spankin' new fingerprint. That's the hole point of MD[45]. That doesn't mean that *all* hashing schemes are guaranteed to change half their bits when one bit of the original source is changed.
Yeah, me too actually. I just know far fewer British actors than I do American ones. :P
Zaphod should go to Bruce Campbell, and Jeff Goldblum would be great for Ford. And if Disaster Area makes it into the movies, they should do whatever it takes to get the Rolling Stones to play them.
Bah. I hope they use as little CG as possible. HHGTTG isn't supposed to be some glitzy high-production thing; it's B-movie camp, and B-movie camp at its finest. Zaphod's plastic-head-attached-to-his-shoulder thing from the BBC TV series was outstanding. CG could ruin a good movie like this.
... the people running the .nu tld were complete and total idiots. I dropped my .nu domain a year after getting it because I didn't want to deal with them anymore. This was back when they were first starting up, though, I suppose, so perhaps they've been doing better as of late.
Absolutely. Just get out there and unplug yourself for $deity's sake! The world will not end without internet access!
I think this robot could have many practical applications in the field of mapping out office buildings for inclusion in FPS games. Frag your coworkers!
Well, some time ago I used Firebird for a few weeks just to see if it *was* better, and eventually I just went back. I was posting in a thread which posed the question, "Why should I switch over to Firebird," and I was providing some reasons why, perhaps, one wouldn't want to. Woo! Discussion!
Heh. You see, rather than "doing something," I've done something better. I've installed a superior product that already does exactly what I want. Why spend time and energy making something else function more like something that already exists and fits all my needs?
For example:
- Why do I have to set browser.fixup.alternate.enabled just to turn off Firebird's damn "helpful" URL-rewriting "feature" (yes, I *didn't* mean to put a ".com" at the end!)
- Why do I have to set browser.tabs.autoHide to false just to have it keep the tab bar visible all the time like it should be doing by default (don't they understand it's *annoying* to have your whole window shift down whenever you open a new tab?)
There were other little minor annoyances, too, but I've forgotten those. Anyway, it's still Moz for me, all the way.The link for comparing popup blocking is interesting, thanks for that... For what it's worth, Moz failed the "Mouseover" test, so that's certainly a problem. It also had popups on the "Dropdown" and "Sticky" tests, but both of those use CSS which I've seen used for actual, legitimate site navigation (blocking Sticky, in particular, would disable menus on an increasing number of sites).
Anyway, thanks for the link...
Of course, now they have limited the downloads, and 40 downloads is just ridiculous. At the time, I was thinking maybe 400-500 megs per month or something; you've still got plenty of room to find new music with. Forty songs though? Bah.
Yeah, absolutely. During my three-month stint with Emusic some time ago, I got a staggering amount of stuff. I got a couple of friends signed up for the service too, and it was great 'till one of them got unceremoniously kicked off for downloading too much. Now, I understand that they were probably losing money off of us, but I was really curious why they didn't just, you know, limit his downloads or something, rather than just dropping his account without any prior warning. I figured that eventually they'd wise up and drop the "unlimited downloads" thing and put some reasonable limits, but forty songs? As I mentioned in another post, what happens if you want to download a Gore Beyond Necropsy album? You're totally SOL, that's what.
Then again, I shouldn't complain seeing as though I used my $15/month subscription to download about 40GB of music over the course of three months, so I guess I got my money's worth. :P
Forty downloads though? What if you want to download a Gore Beyond Necropsy album? Seems you wouldn't be getting your money's worth at all. You'd blow all 40 songs on part of one album and end up with less than an hour of music.